Case Law Details
HCC Samsung Joint Venture Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
In the subject writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged the Section 16(4) of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 and the Notification No. 09.2023-CT dated 31.03.2023 and the Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023. The Petitioner was aggrieved by the denial of Input Tax Credit by virtue of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act, on the account of delay. However, in view of the recent amendment brought in through Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, whereby Section 16 (5) of the CGST Act/DGST Act was introduced, the grievance of the Petitioner stood satisfied. In view of the above, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, took note of the amendments introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. The order passed passed by the Adjudicating authority was set aside and was directed to consider the same in light of Section 16(5) of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017.
The Matter was Argued by Ld. Counsel Mr. Bharat Riachandani.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act)/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act). The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) whereby the petitioner’s claim for input tax credit has been denied, by virtue of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act, on account of delay.
2. The learned counsel for the parties state that in view of the enactment of Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, whereby sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST Act/DGST Act was introduced, their grievance would stand satisfied if the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh in light of the amendments introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that he is not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of provision of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/DGST Act.
4. Mr. Arnav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored before the Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh, in view of the amended Section 16 of CGST Act/DGST Act.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the same in the light of enactment of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.
Author Bio
